Strength in Reserve

(Also posted at: http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/strength-in-reserve)

In what was an outstanding series (if one can call a two-test clash that) victory, the most encouraging sign for India was the strength of its batting reserve. For some time now, India has had a top-class batting line-up – Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir as openers, a combination of Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly, V.V.S. Laxman and Yuvraj Singh in the middle, and the might of wicketkeeper-batsman M.S. Dhoni to boot. But, a replacement for any one of these batsmen has never inspired much confidence. Yuvraj Singh has flirted in and out of the team, and for all his elegance, he lacks the so-called ‘Test Match temperament’. Although Yuvraj’s glittering talents should have seen him make his place permanent upon Ganguly’s retirement, through a combination of poor fitness and poorer attitude he has whittled his opportunities down.

Over the last few months, though, in spite of an apparent feeling that they may be ill-equipped to deal with the rigours of the longer format, India’s young batsmen have performed with aplomb. First, Suresh Raina, fashioned an excellently paced century on debut in Colombo and followed it up with half-centuries in his next two games. Second, Murali Vijay, who as a replacement for the injured Gautam Gambhir, combined fine grace with a tough disposition in conjuring up his maiden test-match hundred at Bangalore. And finally came, possibly, the most important act of reassurance. Cheteshwar Pujara on debut, promoted above Rahul Dravid, at one-drop, played a fabulous hand in India’s run chase and thereby showcased that he belongs at this stage.

Regardless of how irreplaceable Dravid is considered to be, there has been a need for India to find someone who can seamlessly takeover the crucial number three spot, when he decides to call time on his career. There is of course the option of promoting Laxman to his preferred spot, but his excellence in guiding the lower-order is too precious to be thrown away. Pujara, with heaps of runs in domestic cricket in his bag, demonstrated on a wearing final-day pitch that he has both the technique and the temperament to shine. No doubt, there will be far tougher tests to come, especially in the bouncier tracks of South Africa and Australia, and in swinging conditions in England, but the early signs are certainly promising.

'Reckless Endangerment'

Also posted at (http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/reckless-endangerment)

Nigel de Jong on Hatem ben Arfa and Karl Henry on Jordi Gomez represent only the latest in what is a growing trend of utterly callous tackles in the Barclays Premier League. Worrying as it may be, the Premier League’s attitude towards such challenges hasn’t seen much of a shift. Football is no doubt a contact sport and the element of physicality mustn’t be stripped out of the game, but there is a line that should be drawn somewhere, that separates the acceptable from the condemnable.

The Guardian’s Richard Williams suggests a new regulation – ‘reckless endangerment’ as he calls it, which would be an ‘equivalent to the law against driving without care and attention, rigorously punished by dismissal to ensure offenders get the point’. Very often, we see footballers gesticulate to form their hands into the shape of the ball, as if to suggest that they made contact with the ball while tackling, or that they were seeking to get the ball, and therefore, that they shouldn’t be punished. This, Williams seeks to propose should not be a factor in determining the gravity of an offence. Regardless of whether the tackler intended to go for the ball or whether the tackler actually made contact with the ball, the referee must judge whether the tackler had taken due care and attention in ensuring that the opponent will not be periled.

De Jong, startlingly, wasn’t even accorded a yellow card for his tackle on ben Arfa. Surprisingly, in a career in which he could have received half a dozen red cards in the World Cup final alone, de Jong has only been dismissed once – in a UEFA cup match between Hamburg and Rapid Bucaresti. Bert van Marvijk – the Netherlands’ manager – thought the tackle on ben Arfa to be harsh enough to drop de Jong from the Dutch squad for the country’s Euro 2012 qualifiers against Moldova and Sweden. Cynics, however, say that the action should have come much earlier and dropping de Jong for games against minnows, Moldova and a struggling Swedish side is likely to be of little consequence. That said: should it have been left to van Marvijk to take action, while the Premier League and the PFA let the incident run unpunished?

In the space of a few months, de Jong has broken both Bolton’s Stuart Holden’s and ben Arfa’s leg, while putting under threat nearly every opponent he came up against at the World Cup finals. Yet, Brian Kidd, Manchester City's Assistant Manager claims, ‘De Jong is not that kind of player’. Then, I wonder, what kind of a player he is? I am not suggesting that the Dutchman is the only one of an ilk, but, that inaction from authorities and referees alike is contributing to a growing recklessness amongst modern-day footballers.

The Premier League’s failure to act upon careless challenges even on the basis of concrete video evidence is only fuelling this mounting trend. Although, a referee may have seen a concerned incident, it may at times be difficult for the official to gauge the recklessness of the tackle, instantaneously. The authorities must therefore, step in under such circumstances to penalise the tackler with a ban and a fine, if need be, that will act as a strong deterrent. It makes little sense to let incidents pass unpunished on the basis of the referee having viewed the incident, and decided against taking penal action. Moreover, intention as Williams ever so rightly points out, is often tough to determine. The authorities must, hence, act on the basis of the recklessness of the tackle, regardless of the presence of an intention to injure, and accordingly determine the punishment.

The Charm of Golf

Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-charm-of-golf

Who says golf is staid and boring? The Ryder Cup, held this year at the splendid Celtic Manor Resort in Wales, provided four days of utterly captivating, albeit intermittent, golf. The Cup, which pits U.S.A.’s best against Europe’s best every two years, was dragged to a fourth day for the first time in its feted history after rain had wreaked havoc on days one and three. Europe’s Graeme McDowell, the reigning U.S. Open champion, held his nerve to win the last singles tie – a must-win – against Hunter Mahan, to give his team a 14 ½ to 13 ½ victory, after the U.S.A. had rallied spectacularly on the final day. Although the rain, from time to time, threatened to washout the event, the action in itself remained riveting. There wasn’t a moment of monotony in the play, and although the U.S.A. can stake claim to having performed better in almost every round, Europe’s brilliance on day three in the foursomes and the fourballs ultimately proved the difference.

The comradeship between the Europeans, the charismatic leadership of Colin Montgomery – a Cup hero in his own right – Lee Westwood’s sturdy skills, the talent and the bravado of the youngsters – Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland and Rickie Fowler of the U.S.A. – the silken putting skills of U.S.A.’s Steve Stricker, and the sheer nerves of steel that Graeme McDowell showcased at the end, were all equally marvellous to watch. And adding to the allure of the Cup was the stunning setting at Celtic Manor.

But for all the irresistible charm of golf, and particularly the Ryder Cup, the question remains: can golf rightly be considered a sport? The International Olympic Committee certainly seems to think it can – having reinstated the event for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Many, though, believe that the absence of physical risk disentitles golf from being regarded as a sporting activity. Simon Barnes, former chief sports correspondent of the Times, has been openly loathsome of the ‘activity’ – as I’ll call it, at least, for the moment. He says: “Golf is what you do when you’re too old for sport and I wish every delight to every one who picks up a club. Just don’t start comparing it to, say, cricket, football, rugby, women’s gymnastics, figure-skating, athletics or three-day eventing.”

John Hopkins, Times’ golf correspondent, however, presents a contrary view. He says that a 59 year old man – in the instance cited, Tom Watson – can challenge Tiger Woods, owner of 14 Majors, for a championship is why “golf is a celebration, a reason for living, a reason for not putting the clubs up in the attic next to the water tank and, instead, for striding to the 1st tee with a heart full of hope”. He adds, “It is a celebration because golf is a sport that involves knowledge, experience, character, resolve, intestinal fortitude, perspicacity, phlegmatism, integrity, determination, obduracy. Oh yes, and skill”.

Going by the dictionary meaning, I don’t see how golf cannot be categorised as a sport. The Oxford Dictionary defines sport as an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. The aspect of physical exertion in golf may not be as apparent as in other sports – it does not, for instance, involve any running – but an eighteen-hole round works a person’s shoulders and wrists to the hilt. And it most certainly fulfils the requirement of skill. As easy as it may seem on television, landing a ball on a fairway from 400 yards out or sinking a 16 inch putt on a treacherous green is no child’s play. Hell, it isn’t even easy on the Nintendo Wii, as I found out recently to my great horror. Add to that the aspect of entertainment – the narratives woven into a golfing contest are often thoroughly enthralling, as opposed to the popular opinion held by many of the game’s dull and dreary image. I am quite certain that a basic understanding of the rules and nuances of the game would dispel any notion of boredom and would help one to comprehend the stupendous skill and mental fortitude required to succeed at the game.

The Ryder Cup, no doubt, has the added dimension of being a team event, making it appealing even to those who only have a passing interest in the game. The tourney brings in other dynamics – captaincy, player pairings, varying formats, etc. – which make the narrative of the drama by itself a sheer thrill. But leaving the Ryder Cup as well as the aspect of skill aside, golf still has the capacity to throw up the most wonderful stories. Of course, much like any other sport, there can be some contests that are rather one-sided, like an easy straight sets victory in tennis for instance. But, if one finds excellence tedious, then, as Barnes himself has stated, sport is not what the person must look toward.

Gandhi and Sport

(Also posted at: http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/gandhi-and-sport )

On the face of it, drawing a link between M.K. Gandhi and sport seems incongruous – so much so that the only picture that I could find linking Gandhi to sport was that of a look-alike participating in the Mumbai Marathon. There is little evidence of Gandhi having played any sport. In his autobiography there isn’t a word of mention of sport or its social relevance. Ramachandra Guha, in his book, ‘A corner of a foreign field,’ however, cites a 1958 article in which one of Gandhi’s school-mates from Rajkot is quoted as referring to Gandhi as ‘a dashing cricketer, who evinced a keen interest in the game as a school student’ and one who ‘was equally good at batting and bowling’. Yet, Gandhi’s interests, if any existed, had perished, certainly, by the time he returned to India from South Africa.

Guha in an article in the Hindu to mark Gandhi’s 132^nd birth anniversary notes that, perhaps, the only seemingly direct role played by Gandhi in relation to cricket in India concerned the Bombay Quadrangular – an annual tournament comprising four teams – the Hindus, the Muslims, the Parsees and the Europeans. In the months leading up to the 1920 Quadrangular, Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability provided steam to the cause of three Dalit brothers – Baloo, Vithal and Shivram Palwankar. After Baloo, a hugely talented left-arm spinner was dropped from the Hindu Eleven named for their game against the Muslim Eleven, his brothers withdrew in protest. In spite of Gandhi’s movement to have the brothers reinstated in the team, the game against the Muslims was played without the Palwankars, who were however, restored in the team that played the Parsees in the next match.

The competition, halted during the Civil Disobedience Movement, resumed in 1934, and was soon converted into a pentangular, with the inclusion of the ‘Rest’ team that contained Jains and Buddhists amongst players of other religions. However, by then the tournament took place only in fits and starts, coming under the constant cosh of nationalists, who argued that if Muslims had the right to field a separate team, it would only validate their demands for a separate nation.

Gandhi is quoted as saying: “my sympathies (were) wholly with those who would like to see these matches stopped. The sporting public of Bombay should revise their sporting code and must erase from it communal matches. I can understand matches between Colleges and Institutions, but I have never understood the reason for having Hindu, Parsi, Muslim and other communal Elevens. I should have thought that such unsportsmanlike divisions would be considered taboo in sporting language and sporting manners.”

Viewed in this context, I can only imagine that Gandhi would have been pleased with the composition of the Indian cricket team, post-independence. Cricket has since the days of the Bombay Pentangular, mostly been spared the ills of communalism. India has had three Muslim captains – Ghulam Ahmed, M.A.K. Pataudi and Mohammad Azharuddin – apart from being captained, by Parsees (Polly Umrigar and Nari Contractor), Christians (Vijay Hazare and Chandu Borde) and a Sikh (Bishen Singh Bedi). Rising communalism since the 1980s has also had little, if any, impact on the sport. The team has continued to field an amalgam of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, and has been as secular a grouping as one can hope to see. This obvious lack of communalism in Indian cricket only makes one wonder why Gandhi failed to see sport as a means of engineering social change.

Sport has often been used as a tool of social revolution by leaders as far-ranging as Adolf Hitler and Nelson Mandela. While Hitler sought to promote his belief of racial superiority by allowing only Aryans to be fielded in German teams competing at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Mandela sought to bring about racial-unity by supporting the Springboks – the South African rugby team that largely comprised Whites – in the 1995 Rugby World Cup, held in his country.

A blog on livemint.com however, notes Gandhi to have been a ‘huge football aficionado,’ and to have used ‘the game to promote his political philosophy of non-violent resistance and to socially uplift and integrate the Indian community in the Rainbow Republic.” He is reported to have started two football clubs, one each in Johannesburg and Pretoria, with both being named as the ‘Passive Resisters.’ The clubs’ activities, though, declined with the return of Gandhi to India and they were wound-up by 1936. Gandhi could have therefore, been one of the first leaders to have sought to use sport to craft a change in society. He may not have seen sport as a definite means of bringing forth a transformation in Indian society, but his thinking and philosophy is as relevant to sport as it is to any other sphere of activity, especially in a day and age where sport and sleaze seem closer than ever before.

The Return of Orthodox Off-Spin

(Also posted at: http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-return-of-orthodox-off-spin)

Classical finger spin bowling – particularly the right arm off-spin variety – has returned to the fore in recent times. Australia’s Nathan Haurtiz and, more prominently, England’s Graeme Swann have been enjoying a fine run of form, and appreciably are in their respective teams as genuine wicket taking threats as opposed to playing the roles of unadorned containing acts. In a game that is increasingly being stripped of its traditionalism, this renaissance of attacking, orthodox off-spin bowlers has made for delightful viewing.

Admittedly, there have been a few off-spinners who have had a significant impact on cricket in the recent past. Muttiah Muralitharan has only just drawn the curtains on a glittering Test Match career that had seen him amass 800 wickets at an average of under 23 runs per dismissal. Yet, for all of his feats, it was Saqlain Mushtaq who laid out the modern-day requirements in an off-spinners range of varieties through an extraordinary mastery of the doosra. Saqlain’s early triumphs were so phenomenal that the doosra came to be thought of as a necessity in the armoury of every such spinner. The successes of some of the off-spinners – especially Saqlain, Murali and Harbhajan Singh – in the new millennium has no doubt been outstanding, but some of the sheen, at least from a classicist point of view, is eroded when considering that their achievements had much to do with them possessing an effective doosra – a delivery, which can perhaps never be bowled without an unnatural bend of the arm, and one which required the rules to be suitably amended, for it to fall within the ambit of the law.

It is greatly pleasing therefore, to see Hauritz and Swann spin webs around modern-day batsmen, not through the help of a doosra, but by relying on ageless qualities of drift, dip and turn. The dearth of finger spinning off-spinners in contemporary times has been a product, chiefly, of an attitude that such spinners devoid of a potent doosra have no place in the game, let alone be regarded as an attacking option – thereby condemning them to the depths of a Stygian gloom. Yet, this lack of trust arose during a phase when Daniel Vettori had been in his pomp. The Kiwi, no doubt a left-arm orthodox spinner, has served abundant evidence through his accomplishments that finger-spinners could have an attacking part to play regardless of their ability to bowl an ‘other one.’

Haurtiz and Swann, though belonging to a larger class of orthodox off-spinners are still different in their styles. While Hauritz – like most Australian offies – concentrates on pitching the ball well outside off-stump, Swann is a more direct operator, seeking to attack the off and the middle stump with every delivery. The absence of a doosra in their artillery must however, not be mistaken for a lack of variation in their bowling, for both these bowlers possess the ability to beat the outside edge of the right handed batsman by using either an under-cutter, or an eternally effective drifter – thereby offering their respective teams a compelling attacking option.

Swann’s rise to prominence has in particular been marvellous. Having picked up a remarkable 105 wickets in just 22 Test Matches, since the turn of 2009, he has transformed from a player renowned more for his off-the-pitch misdemeanours to a match-winner of immense stature. A superb home Ashes series last year was followed by consecutive man-of-the-match performances in the first two Tests away at South Africa – a showing which catapulted him to third place in the ICCs world bowling rankings. In a career spanning only 24 Tests, he has amassed 9 five-fors, while simultaneously playing a prominent role for England in the shorter formats of the game. But for all the distinction of the statistics it is his style of bowling that has charmed the most.

"I don't go along with the idea that finger spin is a dying art," Swann once said. "If it was, I'd have stopped doing it. It became unfashionable for a while because everyone was searching for wrist-spinners, but there's no two ways about it, if you bowl it properly and it's doing something, you can get good players out. Things are changing for finger-spinners again." I wouldn’t disagree and surely not on the back of Swann’s success over the last two years.

Classy Berbatov; and the Merits of 4-4-2

(First posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-classy-bulgarian)

Dimitar Berbatov lit up Old Trafford with a glorious hat-trick that gave Manchester United a 3-2 victory against Liverpool on Sunday. The first and the third goal were both headers executed albeit, in uniquely dissimilar fashion. While the former was a nonchalant flick off Ryan Giggs’s corner, the latter was a regal finish that saw the Bulgarian out-jumping Jamie Carragher to meet John O’Shea’s right wing cross before planting the ball with a twist of his neck into the bottom right corner. As brilliant a header as the winning goal was, though, it was emphatically overshadowed by his second goal – a sight that was surely meant for the gods. After plucking Nani’s cross from the right flank, out of the air with his thigh, back to goal he unleashed an overhead kick that was as majestic in its beauty as ingenious in its conception.

Berbatov has had his fair share of doubters, with his languid style often mistaken for a lack of interest. But not least because of the 30 million pounds expended on him, Sir Alex Ferguson has resolutely retained faith in the striker. In the build up to the Liverpool fixture, Ferguson described Berbatov, in his program notes, as possessing ‘a touch of genius’ – a statement that was comprehensively vindicated by his splendid showing. With Wayne Rooney beset by problems aplenty in his personal life, United have needed Berbatov to step up to the plate. And step up he has, with his seven goals in six appearances this season already greater than half of the tally he managed in the whole of the last campaign.

Statistics however, fail to do justice to his talents. His ability to link-up play and the frequent displays of his extraordinary vision are a joy to behold. Even against Liverpool, apart from the goals that he scored, the manner of his affiliation with Wayne Rooney made for pleasurable viewing. A dummy that perplexed Carragher and released Rooney down the centre was particularly noteworthy for its ingenuity. His versatility however, remains to be proved beyond question. While his style seems perfectly complimentary to a 4-4-2, he is yet to demonstrate his abilities as the lone centre-forward in a 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3.

While on the subject of tactics, it is also fascinating to note that although the 4-4-2 is considered to have passed its sell by date as an attacking formation, Ferguson continues to place faith in the system. The recently concluded World Cup Finals, as Jonathan Wilson points out in his outstanding column in the Guardian, has served as a death knell for the system. The shape fashioned by Viktor Maslov with Dynamo Kiev in the mid 1960s had come to represent the archetypical formation of modern-day football. For years in the Barclays Premier League, teams rarely seemed to deploy anything but the 4-4-2 – viewed as the formation that distributes personnel across the pitch in the most proportional manner. Arsene Wenger is reported to have said: “I think the 4-4-2 is simply the most rational formation in most cases. With it, 60% of your players are occupying 60% of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space.” It was after all the preferred formation of Ariggo Sacchi, one of contemporary football’s most shrewd tacticians.

Yet in recent times, at least amongst the teams occupying the top echelons in the Premier League, the 4-4-2 has come to be replaced either by the 4-3-3 or the 4-5-1, depending upon the specific needs of the team or the personnel at its disposal. Roy Hodgson whose excellent run with Fulham was predicated upon a system involving a 4-4-2 has also joined the herd by lining Liverpool up in a conservative 4-5-1. Although some may argue that this is a product of the squad at Liverpool’s disposal with Fernando Torres – the only renowned forward available – the impact on the Manchester United-Liverpool fixture this past weekend that David Ngog’s introduction had dispels such a notion. Ngog may have his limitations as a footballer, but his very presence seemed to provide Liverpool with greater attacking options that resulted in two goals that may not have been created if not for the space made available to Torres by the Frenchman’s running. Although Manchester United, who themselves were arranged in a 4-4-2 with Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney plying up front, emerged victorious, Liverpool’s rearrangement in the second half with the substitution of Ngog for Maxi Rodriguez showcased some of the attributes that the 4-4-2 continues to offer.

The Indo-Pak Express

Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-indo-pak-express

I was hoping to tell the tale of a fourth Indian Grand Slam champion. Unfortunately, Rohan Bopanna and his Pakistani partner, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi succumbed to the Bryan twins – Bob and Mike – in the final of the U.S. Open Men’s Doubles yesterday. But the pair, nicknamed the Indo-Pak express, as the final score (7-6, 7-6) suggests, did fine justice to its undeniable talent.

It was a testament to the quality of the two teams on show that there wasn’t a single break of service throughout the match, especially considering the blustery conditions. That Bopanna and Qureshi were excellent is also exemplified by Bob Bryan’s post-match comments: “This has been the best match we ever played. These guys played incredible. We had to step up and match their energy.”

The Indo-Pak duo remained aggressive right through the match, serving purposefully and volleying adroitly, with élan. Adopting the I-formation on both their first and second serves, they stayed true to their game plan, attacking the Bryans on every conceivable opportunity. If anything, it was their inability to play the big points well that turned the tide in the Americans’ favour, as evinced by the fact that they failed to convert any of the four break points that they had fashioned. Even in the tie-breaks, the Asians had surged ahead only to let nerves get their better at crucial junctures.

The victory marks the Bryans’ ninth Grand Slam triumph and they are now only two short of the Todd Woodbridge-Mark Woodforde axis. The win also means that Bob Bryan is only the fourth player to hold the Men’s and the Mixed Doubles at the U.S. Open simultaneously. But for all the feats of the Bryans, the match and perhaps the year as far as doubles tennis is concerned has belonged to the Indo-Pak duo who came together to play under the banner ‘Stop War, Start Tennis’, an initiative of Peace and Sport (an international organisation that seeks “to promote sustainable peace by raising awareness about and educating youth about peace using the structuring values of sport”).

These statements – whether viewed as political or otherwise – is however, aside from the remarkable season that the pair has enjoyed. The year has seen them lift the title at Johannesburg and reach the finals at Casablanca, New Haven, Nice and Napoli. In Washington, they had defeated the Bryans in the quarter-finals, only to fall to the twins in the semi-finals at the event at Los Angeles that preceded the U.S. Open.

There is no doubting that both Qureshi and Bopanna are commendable doubles players. Their respective games dovetail beautifully – the Indian possesses the more powerful serve and is better from the baseline, while the Pakistani has quick hands at the net and is able to vary the angles on his volleys with aplomb. They are no doubt late bloomers, (both are aged 30) but if they manage to stay united, they could well make more than a mere political mark at the world stage.

With the interest in doubles tennis having regressed over the last decade, the Bopanna-Qureshi combine could well reinvigorate the format. In paying tribute to the Bopanna-Qureshi pair, Mike Bryan said: “What they're doing to bring India and Pakistan together is pretty special. A sport can bring people together. These guys are going to be great for the game for a long time. Hopefully they stick together, and I think they will.” And brother Bob added, “They’re going to be around for a long time, I think, if they stick together. They do too many things well, big serving; they've got all the doubles skills. It’s going be good to have just another high marquee team, high profile team out there. It’s really going to help doubles.”